|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 15, 2018 9:57:18 GMT
I'm not taking movies split into 2 parts after being filmed into consideration.
There are plenty of series where some installments are filmed back-to-back, but not all of them. I ask the question because there are so many movies that obviously try to start a new series. Things are set-up and left open-ended so, when the sequel isn't made, it feels unsatisfying. You'll probably tell me that they don't do this until there's evidence of a profit. Well, I think THE LORD OF THE RINGS is the only series completely filmed back-to-back. While it was based on a popular I.P. it was still seen as a financial risk. There have been other movies based on arguably more popular I.P.'s that should've done this. Movies that didn't spend enough time trying to work as a stand-alone story. I think that these things are more tolerable when it's a fact that a follow-up is coming, which is why I think the completely back-to-back approach would make more sense financially.
By the way, what if they had filmed all the DIVERGENT movies back-to-back but they had been released in the same dates? ALLEGIANT would've still flopped at the box office but the studio would've been forced to release ASCENDANT anyway, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Nov 15, 2018 19:56:55 GMT
I know The Hobbit was also shot back-to-back, too. To answer your question, I can only speculate that committing to a back-to-back film production requires a tremendous amount of foresight and faith in the film project if it should succeed at the box office. If the first film is a success, they know there's a market for them to produce the sequels. Not every film is going to be a guaranteed success. Also, as you stated, it comes with a financial risk, and I also think the availabilities of the actors comes into play. Sometimes, they are already committed to shooting another movie by the time they are ready to begin shooting a tentpole film. However, it's Hollywood and they can work around it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Nov 15, 2018 20:50:41 GMT
It has to do with the usual things like time, money, scheduling, etc. It's a pretty big commitment doing something like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 15, 2018 21:35:17 GMT
It might have to do with budget and time restraints since they can’t film and produce all the time. Filmmaking takes a lot of time, money and effort to put into. Especially if it’s a sequel that can’t suck.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Nov 15, 2018 22:03:47 GMT
Obviously part 1 was filmed by itself, but part 2 and 3 of Back to the Future was filmed back to back. But they were pretty much guaranteed success as they were already based on an immensely popular film. I'm sure the film companies and production team would have to be 100% certain that the films and sequels would be rock solid at the box office. Peter Jackson must have been a great salesman and had a very receptive audience at New Line to get Lord of the Rings greenlit.
|
|
paislene
Junior Member
@paislene
Posts: 1,194
Likes: 515
|
Post by paislene on Nov 15, 2018 22:21:29 GMT
One of my personal favorite movie series is The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel and The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel ,
and The Darjeeling Limited (2007) . These movies aren't for everyone . They are basically non-action human interest
dramas , but I love them . The Marigold Series is about Foreign retirees living in India , and is a wonderful emotional
rollercoaster view of life through the eyes of forgotten expatriates lost in a sea of humanity . I was very saddened
when the director said there would be no further movies , due to fragility and age of the main actors (most had to fly
in from Britain). The second movie was still establishing plotlines , while at the same time they started to wrap it up.
Which was a pity , and started getting me thinking , how could filming and themes be extended ? There were certainly
another 3 films that could be made to continue the journey . The answer was of course , to do them back-to-back at the
same time , and to provide the actors and crew with air-conditioned buses for living , and working accommodation .
   
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 15, 2018 22:22:18 GMT
Money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 17, 2018 12:02:24 GMT
ck100 James politicidal I get that filming more scenes costs more money. The thing is that, if a movie doesn't start the franchise as intended, it's because it wasn't profitable enough (or at all) at the box office. If if wasn't profitable, it's most likely due to bad word of mouth caused by audiences being against sequel-baiting. With that in mind, it seems like filming back-to-back seems less risky. In fact, in most cases, these are planned to have maximum 3 installments (I don't know why the concept of a trilogy seems to be more popular), so it wouldn't be that much more to film. We're not talking about AVATAR (4 sequels back-to-back) or last year's POWER RANGERS (before the release, they said it's going to have 5 sequels). The Hobbit was also shot back-to-back, too. Ah, yes. I didn't mention them because they're prequels.
|
|
